Hmm, then why do i still think that anyone with a 7300 GT or lower will stick with XP?

anyone with less than 2gig of ram will stick with xp also, i am begining to think micro$ofts study groups are sponsored by the tobacco industry.

Jimmy 2004Many people have criticised the resource-hungry Windows Vista which has put some gamers off using it, and this report may make people sceptical as to why Microsoft recommends a noticeably more powerful system when running the Aero interface.

Source: Neowin.net

@ a graphics card level, I can see that IF you choose to opt to use (or the installation detects you have enough of a graphics-board) the AERO interface, they would demand you have a DirectX 10 capable videocard & drivers ready for VISTA using AERO-GLASS.

I don't think the CPU really matters as much here, nor the amount of system memory (RAM) onboard the motherboard, but since it is a newer OS, w/ many new features you DON'T see (for security, for instance... e.g.-> Address Space Memory Randomization) might mean it needs more RAM if anything to help processing for said "new features" that you do NOT see...

Vidcards though, especially for AEROGLASS, would probably demand some level of power minimum (as would CPU, but I would put that into the 700mhz-1ghz range personally for this OS, anything Win2k ran on SHOULD run this OS, especially if one chooses NOT to use AEROGlass)... RAM, again, I can see being 'upgraded' as to its requirements minimum too.

APK

P.S.=> I'm probably not stating this as well as I should... but, I guess what I was trying to say, was, that the demand for power would probably be in THIS order imo @ least:

• VideoCard (DirectX 10 capable w/ matching drivers)

• RAM (whatever MS lists as minimum & THEN some)

• CPU (Whatever MS lists, but imo, 700mhz-1ghz SHOULD do... if a CPU can run Windows 2000/XP acceptably, it should push VISTA w/ out AERO fine)

apk

So are they dropping the win98 interface option?
I hope you can still use the " set for optimal performance" tab. I like a simple flat look but want DX10.

unsmartSo are they dropping the win98 interface option?
I hope you can still use the " set for optimal performance" tab. I like a simple flat look but want DX10.

No, you'll still be able to use the old fashioned windows look if you want, they just claim it doesn't affect performance. Admittedly you won't be able to make it look like XP unless you install third party software. This is based on my use of the beta anyway - I don't think they would remove the old appearance, safe mode likes it incase other things go wrong...

They conducted the research. Of course they wont say anything negative about their own software. Im not sure I will even mess with Vista, at least not right now.

1GB of Ram should be plenty for this OS. So should a DX10 capable Video Card and so should a 1.6ghz proc

It probably doesn't have as much of an affect since a lot of the work seems to be off-loaded onto the GPU, hence the requirement of a halfway decent GPU to pull it off properly. The people that don't have GPUs capable of running it and force it on will certainly tell you it affects performance. You don't need a DX10 graphics card to run it, I don't know where you guys are getting that. Any decent DX9 card can pull it off just fine. Hell even something as weak as an integrated 6100 is good enough.

TrackHmm, then why do i still think that anyone with a 7300 GT or lower will stick with XP?

7300Gt are actually really good cards an OC'ed 7300GT > 660GT

From the horses mouth newtekkie :)

Aero will not be used on my computer. Even a little performance drop can be bad... also, from Microsoft, this is biased.

PVTCaboose1337Aero will not be used on my computer. Even a little performance drop can be bad... also, from Microsoft, this is biased.

Well, I found that having aero enabled alone didn't pose too much of a problem as far as resources are concerned, but enabling the transparency really ate at my RAM and it was a bit slower. Having said that, this was when it was beta so it could've changed. Either way, I won't have Vista until there is something that I want from it (most likely some software stops working on XP). If it aint broke, don't fix it. Admittedly XP is broken but releasing a whole new OS isn't the fix! :laugh:

To me, Windows XP is about the best they have come up with to a good OS. Id use linux if everything I use supported it, which it doesnt.

newtekie1It probably doesn't have as much of an affect since a lot of the work seems to be off-loaded onto the GPU, hence the requirement of a halfway decent GPU to pull it off properly.

Made sense to me also... hence, why a good vidcard MIGHT be an actual requirement.

newtekie1The people that don't have GPUs capable of running it and force it on will certainly tell you it affects performance.

Agreed, again, 110% - hence, why I felt the graphics card IS the key thing here, for AeroGlass effects.

newtekie1You don't need a DX10 graphics card to run it, I don't know where you guys are getting that.

I meant it more on THAT level, more than the user shell, mainly for gaming... I should have stated that above more clearly.

I meant DirectX 10 level of that API, as to WHY I said DirectX 10 above, just for taking full advantage of it for gaming w/ the ONLY Ms OS that has DirectX 10 out for it currently @ least... It really didn't come out like that though, & I just re-read it. My bad.

newtekie1Any decent DX9 card can pull it off just fine. Hell even something as weak as an integrated 6100 is good enough.

As long as it could run DirectX 9 or less games well? Agreed, for AEROGLASS...

Again, however, for its level of gaming possible on it??

DirectX 10 & games for that API, is where VISTA will have some advantage in the future over XP/2003 Server/2000 certainly... & eventually, when the games come out on that API, it definitely will create a demand for DirectX 10 API capable vidcards + drivers for them too.

APK

P.S.=> I still haven't tried VISTA yet, not even the last release candidate that was a freebie D/L from MS... no time to install it lately the past few months, & to be blunt about it? I really DO like Windows Server 2003 because it does all I need (+ more I don't even begin to tap into which it can provide in abilities fully)...

Windows Server 2003 (fully current hotfix patched), in its default workstation mode, is truly imo @ least, the best of all worlds XP/2000/NT/9x & below/etc. et al... apk

On tom's MS gave a guy Vista Ultimate to review www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/02/windows_vista_ultimate_hands_on/index.html . Instead of a install disk they sent it on a Acer Ferrari 1000 :wtf: Thats what I call setting the deck. Thats a lot like saying BP gas is great because the Ferrari you put it in went real fast,put that same gas in my GMC 1500 an it's not so great.
He does set it to classic mode so it must be there, thank god.

wow, microsoft claims microsoft isnt a piece of crap! what news!

what i thought was that vista themes were made different they were written as a part of the operating system and they did not use a windows themes manager to run them to where they dont use as much system resources as did the xp themes

By the way, I just read the report, it has no reference to gaming or 3D applications from what I can see. All it is based on is application launch and exit times with some office functions given a benchmark too. According to their results, Windows Vista is generally as quick as XP, so the final release must be much faster than the BETA if this is true.

ZOMG!

My 4 cylinder pulling a 2 ton trailer doesnt get slower when you add a passenger, either.

*bash head here*

Bloated os, bloated UI, if its already crawling, its not gonna be too noticable now is it..

I don't care if it uses more resources.... Things that look cooler with 3D effects will 99% of the time use more resources. A year or two from now, when everyone has minimum 4 gigs of ram in their PC, this will not even be an issue. This IS the OS of tomorrow.

I guess the Windows UI could be a lot worse, it could be as bloated as OSX or many of the "user friendly" linux distos. At least I can run Windows Vista comfortably on 256MB of RAM with everything but Aero glass turned on, I can't say that about OSX, 512MB is barely enough for OSX to run.

What Microsoft should do, is work on one OS that works and works damn well. I do not see a need for a new OS right now. XP is kicking ass very well. Hell, Server 2003 makes APK happy with delight (I use it at work on our Dell laptops, it is very nice). This is their attempt to revamp things and get with their hardware buddies to ass rape us consumers. They should work on one OS and make it perfect.

jocksteelukanyone with less than 2gig of ram will stick with xp also, i am begining to think micro$ofts study groups are sponsored by the tobacco industry.

LOL:laugh: Sponsored by or trained by, what's the difference.

Alec§taar@ a graphics card level, I can see that IF you choose to opt to use (or the installation detects you have enough of a graphics-board) the AERO interface, they would demand you have a DirectX 10 capable videocard & drivers ready for VISTA using AERO-GLASS.

I don't think the CPU really matters as much here, nor the amount of system memory (RAM) onboard the motherboard, but since it is a newer OS, w/ many new features you DON'T see (for security, for instance... e.g.-> Address Space Memory Randomization) might mean it needs more RAM if anything to help processing for said "new features" that you do NOT see...

Vidcards though, especially for AEROGLASS, would probably demand some level of power minimum (as would CPU, but I would put that into the 700mhz-1ghz range personally for this OS, anything Win2k ran on SHOULD run this OS, especially if one chooses NOT to use AEROGlass)... RAM, again, I can see being 'upgraded' as to its requirements minimum too.

APK

P.S.=> I'm probably not stating this as well as I should... but, I guess what I was trying to say, was, that the demand for power would probably be in THIS order imo @ least:

• VideoCard (DirectX 10 capable w/ matching drivers)

• RAM (whatever MS lists as minimum & THEN some)

• CPU (Whatever MS lists, but imo, 700mhz-1ghz SHOULD do... if a CPU can run Windows 2000/XP acceptably, it should push VISTA w/ out AERO fine)

apk

i've ran vista on a P4 2.6C, 6800GT 256MB and 1GB DDR400 (single channel) and it ran perfectly without a hitch. This was at 1024x768 res at 85Hz on a CRT.

Aero doesnt slow a PC, its just using 3D hardware thats not in use... alt-tabbing works fine with 3D games too (i'm on a vista rig now, testing it for work) Using transparency i reccomend 6800GT/7600/X1600 or higher video card however, as that did slow things down a bit more.

in my experience, 1GB ram, a 2500+/2.4GHz intel (or higher) with a 6600GT or above will happily run vista, and anything above that will run aero without a hitch unless you have a HDTV for a screen.

You CAN run a 98 look, but it doesnt really go any easier on the hardware. except for +10C GPU temps (at idle, load was the same) i see no difference between vista and XP. Gaming is a tad slower however, mostly due to audio.

As for ram, i'm running aero glass w/ transparency, 8 tabs in firefox, MSN messenger, yahoo messenger, nod32 antivirus and winamp, and its only using 598MB ram. so the 2GB thing is BS.

Musselsi've ran vista on a P4 2.6C, 6800GT 256MB and 1GB DDR400 (single channel) and it ran perfectly without a hitch. This was at 1024x768 res at 85Hz on a CRT.

Aero doesnt slow a PC, its just using 3D hardware thats not in use... alt-tabbing works fine with 3D games too (i'm on a vista rig now, testing it for work) Using transparency i reccomend 6800GT/7600/X1600 or higher video card however, as that did slow things down a bit more.

in my experience, 1GB ram, a 2500+/2.4GHz intel (or higher) with a 6600GT or above will happily run vista, and anything above that will run aero without a hitch unless you have a HDTV for a screen.

You CAN run a 98 look, but it doesnt really go any easier on the hardware. except for +10C GPU temps (at idle, load was the same) i see no difference between vista and XP. Gaming is a tad slower however, mostly due to audio.

As for ram, i'm running aero glass w/ transparency, 8 tabs in firefox, MSN messenger, yahoo messenger, nod32 antivirus and winamp, and its only using 598MB ram. so the 2GB thing is BS.

What Vista build is that? RTM?

newtekie1I guess the Windows UI could be a lot worse, it could be as bloated as OSX or many of the "user friendly" linux distos. At least I can run Windows Vista comfortably on 256MB of RAM with everything but Aero glass turned on, I can't say that about OSX, 512MB is barely enough for OSX to run.

Umm, no. It's been tested that the os alone uses more than 700MB of ram with Vista. And OS X runs perfectly fine on 512MB. My OS X machine uses less ram than my XP machine, and my XP is partially stripped with nLite and currently on a week old install. From a fresh boot, my OS X (10.4.8 fully updated) is using 187MB of ram. XP is using just north of 200MB with my 3rd party startup programs and services disabled (except anything hardware related). Note that none of my 3rd party apps were disabled for the OS X testing. The XP numbers need retested to be confirmed, that's going from memory. Once I retest, I'll edit the final number.

EDIT: My guess was correct, 201MB for XP.